 Call the meeting to order is 7 0 6 August 2nd Agenda considerations reserve for changes to agenda items and order We will not be changing anything tonight Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda All set there. Okay All right, so we do our We continue with a consideration of amendments to the Colchester development regulation supplement 44 All right, hello, everyone. My name is Zachary Maya I'm the development planner for the planning and zoning department and standing in tonight for Kathy on the Rose the department's director Who usually staffs the Planning Commission? so this meeting is a follow-up to the Previous Planning Commission meeting where the Planning Commission walked through a majority of these list items and heard from the public and considered Whether or not these changes would be appropriate We're just going to briefly walk through the list and kind of pause after each one just so that you know the board can jump in Or public can also you know weigh in on these specific changes so for a Change to be considered in supplement 44 create new residential zoning districts Lakeshore 3 LS 3 and Lakeshore 4 LS 4 Changes here are in chapters 3.06 and 3.07 Table a 1 table a 2 that table a 1 is the table of uses table a 2 is dimensional standards and the draft Residential building types which I can pull up as well to have a brief discussion. I'll pause for a moment though for any comments from the board Yep, this is where you had a comment on our zoning Was the restaurant yep, so I just would like to advocate for but it sounds like it's already allowed in To conditionally permit a small restaurant of Dacreia College And I think I've heard the next responses when we had the public here And I just talked to several people not a lot of people today would love to be able to walk Sure, so let me go ahead and pull up the table of uses here So the table of uses being amended to add in Lakeshore 3 and 4 districts the use that I'm hearing Sarita is more of a short-order restaurant generally Tends to be the you know restaurants where people have table service not table service or a counter service Outdoor seating for a brief time, but not a lot of seating And let me just find that use all right, so it'd be uses 8.120 There's some alternatives in there currently for short-order restaurants with no drive-up service With a drive-up service and with outdoor seating right now those are allowed in the general development one districts Generally, they're allowed in the general development districts Mostly conditional uses So with that in mind, I'm hearing that you're interested in Making it a conditional use in Lakeshores 3 and 4 or was it just for okay, and I recall some of the public Some of the public engagement that went on and you know Forming these districts recently and there was some you know Consider a some pushback about commercial uses in these districts I think most of it was coming from the position of traffic and Parking along East Lakeshore Drive Which are not two huge things that the Commission has control over But that is definitely consideration for adding that use here. I'd love to hear what other members Think about this Parking Sure so Conditional use Criteria for the development review board definitely touches on traffic And whether or not the use would have an undue adverse effect on traffic in the area With that in mind The development review board is is limited in their ability to Restrict hours of operation or You know impose these certain conditions, you know some of them they of course can add other conditions Related to certain criteria and the regulations There's not that much that would allow them to provide input there that being said they They definitely, you know Parking on a site might be Related to the size or the number of seats on the site and then You know the amount of seats they have might also be dictated by septic capacity on the site, of course That is a little bit more open-ended when you think about sewer in the area So it's definitely a you know a consideration. There's people on either side of it I would defer to you know, you all here to just have more of a robust robust conversation about it Because it definitely changes the planned area in the future That's all right, you'll need to come up the mic though and state your name Oh, yeah, I'm sorry We will let's do it when we will do it feel us on East Lakes or a drive and Okay, I just find it's gonna be very difficult to that to do that to have Multiple more people coming in. There's already like about 5,000 cars that go by on that road and big semi trucks And to try to get someplace that's going to have a little A little general area for you know 12 a seating So if they're seating 12 and then the 12 they're going to see after them are waiting and then the other ones they're just getting ready to You know, I just it's just gonna be very difficult I think it's going to be a little bit longer before we can say yes or no on this subject because It just doesn't have that accommodation up and down East Lakes or drive. I just don't I can't even picture it I use that a lot if I'm going Anyway, I just can't bring up and down there Vision a spot that that could happen Except for a piece like sure variety. I mean, that's the only place that's come parking that is logical To have any place there. I mean the guy on the corner. It's got the worry of that's it He's not gonna mean so I don't get if you guys are saying like well an example would be I'd like to hear examples We're thinking everything if they were thinking their example of people you're representing Can you give me enough in the example of if you want? Well, you go ahead. We've got you You want if you're done that we'll continue on we'll discuss to this one ourselves through now. You'll hear it Well, we have to discuss on it. Okay with that Yep We might absolutely we've been doing this for a long time now. We've got a couple years into it. This is not So we're gonna go on Well, my first thought is we had our little public sure it It was really just on the housing. We didn't bring up any other uses on there And I think we're so far on the stage. That's the direction we're going. I think this particular subject I would think needs more input From the community on Eastlake Shore Drive. I don't think we as a planning commission can Right now Make that decision without their involvement just like we got them involved Earlier with the housing It's So but not for probably not for this supplement though, right? If you supplement we decided we'd like to leave it as is but we have another supplement coming up So and every supplement we get to put on new items, which we think are important So at this point, you're right. We have not pushed the commercial Because the community was pretty Resent as minimal as possible That's where we are right now But we do have another supplement coming again right after this Absolutely, I'll just I just want to just say this I feel like on Eastlake Shore Drive The traffic rules people's lifestyle, you know the cars and automobiles and it concerns me that That you know that people have to get in their cars all the time to go somewhere There's very few places where citizens in a neighborhood can walk to someplace And grab a cup of coffee or and I see it in like in summer They'll ask and even it's smaller from on has what I'm driving through I'm looking to see if they have a little Restaurant and and a lot of them do you know, and it's not like they have a kind of parking It's more coming from a place of wanting a space where the community or the neighbors can get together And I understand your concerns. I hear your concerns I just Know I think it's unfortunate We have to get in a car so much and co-tested goes somewhere gets in there and just trying to begin to Respect pedestrians and The so So so For myself, I think we are at the end of this and we have a lot of discussion. You're right It is a good idea. I think in some areas Eastlake Shore Drive, but it would have to be for another supplement Okay, only because we had so much input. You're right. We did put a big emphasis on the little shops at the time That's my favorite Yeah, and then my gut feeling was we don't know it for both sides We cannot do another supplement. He doesn't have to be included in the supplement We can have a discussion on it. Okay to get it if we want to be supplement for you fear Sure. All right. Thank you for did you want finishing off? Yeah, I just wanted to just add to that sure because the last statement that you had made was You know the traffic going through there and like I said just a little bit earlier How we have these semi trucks? Going through that road We I can I'd love to see you know an area like that that we could have people walking and strolling But that's not even planned before we put this into motion. I Mean, there's no walkways up and down Eastlake Shore Drive. There's no walkway at all There's no bike path on Eastlake Shore Drive. There's nothing. It's just two-lane roads There's no side to pull over on or anything. So my concern would be Or maybe a problem-solving skill would be to think about Routing all the traffic Right right down route seven and less. No, really. No, but if you're going to make this a resident I mean a seasonal recreational Come and walk and stroll and walk your dog sit here or sit on the side of the road Then make it not a thorough fear. If you have the regular traffic That's going by, you know on Eastlake Shore Drive Shut off to the big semi trucks and all the people racing are going to work because they didn't play in their time If they use route seven like they were really supposed to be Eastlake Shore Drive I think originally was for Eastlake Shore Drive You know back in the old days the old camps the old this people were camping. It was camps. It wasn't year-round Residential you've got more year-round residential. There are people walking dogs and people renting that have dogs and animals and kids and So and there's no walk across I get you know South Bay. There's no walk across. I sit and I can see them There's like a whole family with their all kinds of stuff in there People come up over the hill and they can't get there They're all like waiting to cross the road and the dog, you know So anyway, so if you could do that something about that traffic On Eastlake Shore Drive, let them run on Westlake Shore Drive. It's commercial. They know they're 25 and Since we've done 25 miles an hour on there. I've seen a big noticeable difference of people by 25 But the regular guys are passing them Because they're not going to pass them up. So we've got you know, so if we could get that piece then we as People might say we love those things there But there's no walkway, there's no lifelike Great. Thank you Okay Yes, so The item here regarding under 4a of draft residential building types There was a draft attached to this packet For discussion purposes hadn't yet been incorporated, but I did put some draft language into Lakeshore for regarding it. So I'm going to go ahead and pull up that table just to have a quick conversation So right now the table of uses really In table a one goes from single family or you know one family dwelling unit to a two family dwelling unit to a Multifamily dwelling unit, which is anything three or greater and it really leaves a lot of the number of units as well as the Design of those units and what they end up looking like kind of up in the air And I think that it through some previous conversations. Kathy Ann had Floated the idea of providing some general design standards To the Planning Commission and may have circulated this table With that in mind really looking at breaking out Multifamily into a couple different categories such as townhouse Small multiplex medium multiplex and large multiplex Now noting that you know medium multiplex and large multiplex There's still some some discussion to be had about what those thresholds are But small multiplex and townhouse might be the place to start So really looking at these two here Going into townhouse. We're looking at I'm not going to read the definition here, but three to six narrow dwelling units Generally forming a single row of housing You know with separate entrances front and rear yards a small multiplex being something that's you know single detached a Multi-unit residential building three or four dwelling units. I'm on a single lot with shared front side and rear yards shared parking and potentially some areas where these Types of dwelling units might be allowed in So taking a look at townhouses There was some draft recommendation that these might be allowed in all residential districts except LS one and LS three Those are the lake shore districts closest to Lake Champlain And then small multiplexes being Appropriate in and allowed in our two our three LS two LS four and all GD districts now when I've proposed here just understanding that To get towards this type of Regulation really this belongs in table a one breaking out the multifamily dwelling units into subcategories Being townhouse small to large multiplexes But there does there is an opportunity to kind of put these into LS for now through the additional standards under LS for so with that in mind really allowing for townhouses and multiplexes, but of course making sure that that's what you know the planning Commission's intent was there and You know starting to you know note that those might be appropriate in LS for With the understanding that in future supplements the planning Commission could look at these types of dwelling units across town So there is some draft language I can pull up But I'd love to you know get some feedback from the planning Commission on this proposal and just get your thoughts on it I'm So is this table Being proposed to be included in supplement 44 no, okay. This is just how we Feel about this table at this time to incorporate it and further So the way that I've incorporated some elements from the table Let me go ahead and pull it back. You want this? Correct What was that you looking for this for this supplement for LS for yes only LS for As a way to allow multifamily dwellings in LS for So the verbiage would be in As you said like table 1a with LS for So what this will end up looking like I can kind of walk you through here Right now So this is the proposed table a one here these Townhouses and small multiplexes would be considered multifamily dwellings So realistically it will be either permitted or conditional use In LS for it would likely not be allowed in LS 3 With that in mind we'd be defining townhouse and small multiplex in the definition section of the regulations same definition that's in the table and then in the LS for Lakeshore for 3.07 section under Additional standards we'd be saying multifamily dwelling shall be subject to plan residential development review as per article 9 Stating that townhouses and small multiplexes shall be permitted or subject to conditional use review In accordance with the dimensional standards established in table a tube so dimensional standards And then noting that multifamily dwelling units exceeding those limits Would be prohibited so really restricting multifamily development to smaller You know three to six unit buildings So if you had a Large piece of property could you have multiple? small dwelling multi-family dwelling units on the on the site I When we've looked at the density for all LS 3 and LS 4 You know we looked at what the zoning rigs would allow for density right now How many people max could be there? I think it was taking into account that they could put a lot more housing on a larger piece of property So does that take that into consideration? I mean it's so right now what would be allowed Let me pull up this table here. So so really we'd be looking at the density of the District to guide how many units could be on a property With the way this is currently written it would allow for someone who say they could do Say a townhouse is something that is you know six units at most They have the density to do 12 units on a property. They could do two townhouses In the way. This is currently written I guess so that's the same that townhouses a single unit and you're saying townhouses more of three to six Attached attached units, okay, because my definition of a townhouse is a little different, okay Okay So the density would stay the same they could put multiple buildings, but no larger than a Townhouse or so no larger than yeah, no larger than you know three to six units attached At most right and then you could do another Townhouse multiple dwellings in it You know I'm welcome welcome more discussion on that if you think it's you know something you'd want to see a harder cap on Like one townhouse one multiplex. It's just a little bit, you know, this was more of a starting point to get this sort of regulation into our into the overall regulations Properties So just to clarify rich you'd be fine if there were like say there was a large property and it had them two Three to six unit buildings. Okay. Yeah, I think what we're thinking of is the Condo building that's already on LS for I think it has I don't know how many units it has Has probably at least six I think that's what we're saying before was somewhat appropriate doesn't seem to have a strong impact on LS for Yeah They are set back. Yeah, I think it sounds good There's six units the setback So it's like, you know, like the gin and rice place the way she's got all her stuff and out back They're building a whole bunch of stuff out there. I don't know what they're building but so That's gonna be on the sewer system. I'm gonna just say Yeah, there is different parcels it doesn't it goes per parcel No matter what's on that parcel if it needs a sewer system, it fits on the LS for it will be part of this Just notes down All right So Hearing a yes on that, you know, I think you know down the line will have a Further conversation about that sort of regulation as it applies in future supplements I think there's some room for more discussion on it, but I think this is a good first step to start You know engaging with those ideas So any more discussion on for a from the commission or public Great Rick Davey from East Lakes Shore Drive, I got a just a couple of things I think they all fall within what we're talking about with for a right now 306 a4 it states It might just be a verbiage issue, but it says through lots would it do you mean just lots without the word through in it So it's my understanding that a through lot is Defined as in our regulations is a lot that might have two frontages On two roads perhaps. There's some constrained properties on East Lakes Shore Drive So recognizing that you know There's still, you know some desire to Favor the the historic development pattern that's occurred out there and the ability for a property owner to have a Residence on a lot that might be challenging to develop So through lots are a thing in our development regulations, so I believe it's intentional in this case Okay, that's what my question was So on B1 306 B1 Where you speak of demolition Would it be prudent to put in abandonment also? The only reason I bring it up is because It's very expensive to demo a property and so some properties are just leaving their structures just to Fall away into the ground over time and they tend to be eyesores We'd run into a problem if property taxes are paid Even though nothing's going on to the property. We're not able to do anything about that You keep up on your payments Even though they've walked away from it from now. We would not have any jurisdiction Okay Table a to page two I Sent these to Kathy and this morning. I'm sorry. I was a little late. I kept catching up on stuff. Summer gets in a way So a to page the heights why is LS3 25 feet while LS1 and LS2 are 20 feet So I think the question is about the height of LS3 Wondering why 25 feet is proposed in LS3 versus the 20 foot in LS1 and LS2 Excuse me You want to build still do two feet two floors Okay, so we are talking about the mean the current where the Structure is currently the average mean of that property. So if it's on a bank, it's down low So you really talking about that house is in but this is going to roll across all of them The ones that are up on the bank, too. Yeah, so The other piece I had was 14 table a 114 was that page 14 No on table a 114 the PUD So for the PUD for LS3 wouldn't that be no or conditional? and because up in 1.8 it says no, I'm happy to provide a bit of clarity here. That's all right So my understanding is that a planned unit development is really it's it's not a use that would normally fit in this table What it is is a type of review that a property might be eligible for through our subdivision regulations Really looking at does that property have 1.5 acres of development? The Lakeshore three properties Hard to get to that number, but you know understanding that that might still be a possibility. It's a way It's really a different review process and Understanding that just because you're allowed to do a planned unit development You may not be able to develop multi-family dwelling units that might be subject to plan unit development review so by Having this is a permitted use in Lakeshore three. It does not allow for multi-family housing in Lakeshore three Okay, so if it's very unlikely, why would we put it in? It's it's still a review that is allowed in that district because that's really under article nine of the development regulations Okay Is it and are there going to be any changes in appendix B as far as the diagrams go? I didn't see it attached to this document. I was just curious if there were going to be any changes It's not listed. That's why I was And the only reason I bring it up is because of the you know, the calculation for height Is pretty critical and a lot of the what's happening with LS3 and the height issues Sure, give me just a minute to scroll to the calculation of height in the draft language here So just to address that it doesn't look like there's any changes Relative to in appendix B related to 2.06 B Because really that section was just clarified But that being said, let me just check on the height calculation for accessory structures I'm sad so I might be what you're referring to there. So it's my understanding that This section here in 2.09 A5 detached accessory structure shall not exceed 20 feet in height except as follows that matches with Appendix B figure to Measuring the 20 feet in height pitched roof accessory structures shall not exceed 25 feet in height that Also matches with appendix B as well. Some of these other criteria under B through E are if certain conditions are met I don't believe that There have been certain conditions to get relief from the height restrictions for accessory structures that have not had Drawings in the appendices so there's no update at this time proposed for that. Thank you. Thank you Thanks. All right So Moving on to be reorganization of statutory references to municipal plan permitted uses and conditional uses to reduce redundancy This is starts at chapter 1.07 and continues throughout these owning districts any comments from the commission. All right hearing none See updates to process for zone change requests to align with planning commission policy adopted February 2022 can be found in 2.03 D any comments clarifications and minor substantive adjustments related to dimensional standards of accessory structures including height and placement 2.06 and table a to Comments or questions from the commission we kind of just went through it again Moving on to E minor changes to language related to accessory dwelling units Change from use of apartment and residential unit to be consistent with statute Clarity with respect to obtaining a wastewater permit prior to issuance of zoning permit 2.09 B and definitions to 12.02 Any comments or questions from the board? F clarify how heights of fences are measured to point one zero B. Nobody's on the fence. All right 4g changes to status of non-conforming use Status to provide for limited extension 2.12 4h explicitly connect wastewater requirements of chapter 4 of the Colchester code of ordinances to the development regulations 2.15 systems being Just a little concerned about properties that are handed down family to family And may not in this instance would it need to be So excuse me The intent of the language here and also in I believe it's article 11 is to For for new development that obtains a wastewater permit and Zoning and building permit from our department So that prior to Certifying that the work has been complete under a zoning and building permit Relevant to something that would require a wastewater permit a new wastewater permit You would need a certification letter from an engineer It would not be required in the case of someone who wants to In large a deck on a camp that their family is owned for years and needs to get a certificate of occupancy for that deck permit It would not be required in that situation just when one is required if you're adding a bedroom or Building a new structure It's my understanding that so we issue certificates of occupancy related to work under permits Not for transfers of ownership so there'd be no trigger for us to Prevent occupancy Based on a failing septic system now if the septic system is failing it might not be a great idea to to live in The dwelling unit if it's actively failing You know, there's some requirements on the wastewater permitting side of things You know, we're not changing any of that tonight So really there's there's no situation. I see where someone could Come into ownership of a property and not be allowed to occupy it from the zoning Side of regulations not from wastewater. Any other comments on that? so For I update reference to building code subsection to reflect changes in chapter four of the code of ordinances 2.17 No problem Very well 4j clarify that the severance corners form-based district is the general development 3 gd3 district 4.03 4k updates to water protection district to include exemptions permitted under state statute for stormwater management systems 7.04 c for L consider regulations Related to electric vehicle charging stations as remanded from the select board as part of supplement 43 10.01 c 7 through 9 This is the bicycle one that's in there. It's part of the electric. Oh, I know it is But I didn't know okay, so we just took the bicycle out. We took out the charging station for the bicycle Okay, moving to the charging station for the cars outside I mean, I just got a there's no way No To charge it and I just think I don't think they can have a shed or I understand that Unfortunately, I think it's the point where we have to study that Exactly how many we need another supplement comes in. Okay, that's that's not I think I'm not kind of See that point of view that I think we're kind of like at the point moving And again, it's just you know again effort to get people out of cars and you know If you have an electric bike, can you plug it into a normal? So people could take it up to their office and plug it in So for M extend expiration period for major subdivisions and clarify rights associated with 24 VSA 4463 for subdivision plots changes can be found in 9.04 h for n updates related to bicycle parking as remanded From the select board as part of supplement 43 10.01 k So for oh updates to commercial vehicle definitions and parking standards as remanded from the select board as part of supplement 43 Can be found in 10.01 m was this where we decide what the length of Number of trucks and truck size it and residential areas. Yeah, that one. I think we let we said 18 I since then I've been looking at Because it's Like my neighbor used to have one. What have you we might want to increase that one cuz actually Cuz the smallest Cargo van that's what we're talking about The smallest one was 16.2 feet, but the average was like 19 feet six inches There's only one maker that does one that's under 18 It just took a little bit Yeah, now's the time to do it. We want to go to 20 which I think as long as once we go over that number I was where I was getting at then we're getting to the bigger rigs. Exactly. So I was okay with Anywhere from the 16 to 20 at the time. So it seems like the the major makers of these 19 6 to 19 So I would say we increase that to 20 feet The height is under 10.01 m4. So it's height shall be less than 10 feet All right, so I'll make that change and I've got a note down on here as well. All right 4p Updates to photovoltaic systems solar collectors to be consistent with statute in chapter 4 of the code board For the commons from the board For Q updates related to non-net metered photovoltaic systems to provide for increased height and reduced screener requirements of Ground mounted systems can be found in 10.08 b3 For our updates to fence and setback requirements for wind turbines 10.09 For s clarification related to requirements for water and wastewater permits 11.03 b And let me just check on that to make sure that we Totally got that rounded out here. All right, so no further questions on that one just really do okay 4t Extend expiration period for zoning sign water and wastewater permits changes can be found in 11.05 For you amend a definition of in to reduce number of allowed rooms and length of stay chapter 12 So I know that this one was still hanging out in front of the board I think we want to continue it to this meeting to have a further discussion on it I have a table here that I can share Yeah, so currently the zoning allows for Variety of short-term rental sort of arrangements Starting with Ben and breakfast and working up to extended stay hotel In between that you've got inns which currently allow for 60 or fewer units our rooms and then Bumping that up to hotel beyond there So there was some discussion about bringing down that number of 60 Going into the last meeting Settling at you know 20 or fewer units But I think the board need a little bit more time to think over that number. I know that Bob check who is Not here tonight It was discussing reducing the number 20 down to 15 So I'd love to turn over the board to hear more about you know what your thoughts are on this Well That's not that those are the ones on the market correct, but if you think of other ends they were like the Generic was where I could get Dimensions, right, but I can think of others like you know woodstock down in Manchester There's places that are called in They have a huge number of rooms So I this whole thing of an in In seems like a word to cover anything from a very small establishment to a large establishment So I think we're trying to define something that maybe in may not be I don't know ends the right word for it We don't but we allow this in LS for And LS3 and we did not want huge No, I understand that but So I understand coming up with a different word, but at this time unless we come up with Definition or different So just to clarify in Will not be allowed in Lakeshore 3 and 4 it's currently allowed in It's conditional on Lakeshore 1 and permitted in Lakeshore 2 So I'm wondering if we should make it more like a large and a medium-sized and a small And I mean as we're going through this stuff again because there's different Properties throughout Colchester that could probably support a large in And others that you don't anything larger than a small in so I think it needs to be further developed But I think as a placeholder right now. I Think either the 15 or 20 is a good placeholder for our Current definition I don't know that's why I say you know some places are called an in which Operates as a hotel. So that's why I'm kind of fuzzy why we have a definition for an in but if we do maybe we divide it up So we can make it for different zoning areas where it's appropriate Yeah 3 Which one is this an LS for Okay, Henry talking about You had a comment so my comment was just going to be that in terms of creating these different, you know approaches to you know These hotel arrangements whether they're you know smaller or larger You know my read of what's currently in table a one right now is that you know You have hotels and motels that are allowed in certain districts and one Distinguishing factor here is that a hotel is conditional use in Lakeshore to an in which is you know a hotel doesn't have any threshold Whereas an in is the maximum 60 units is you know Permitted in Lakeshore to so you're seeing kind of a Something that was you know You can infer that it might be more appropriate to have a smaller accommodation there smaller being the threshold at 60 units So Rebecca when I'm hearing what I've jotted down is just maybe saying maybe there's a lower threshold in addition to that For consideration in other districts. Well, you have it permitted right? Yeah. No, it's hard to read this thing Let me zoom in so we made it So that's hotel and motel as well as commercial I thought I saw it in commercial. Okay, so we have it No, I was just I was thinking you know in areas like commercial It's not even permitted in commercial so it would be Hotels motels and extended stays would be conditional and commercial I don't know why it's It's almost like it was put in there just for LS to No That's the only place it's permitted Yeah, which is fine it definitely fits in Well, even even in LS to I don't think you want 60 That's fine. Yeah, it reduces it down from 60 to 20 Hotel Sure, so I'm hearing a consensus around 20 units not quite 15, but lowering 60 down to 20 for now So 4v amend definition of excavation to exclude work exempt from or authorized under state permitting chapter 12 Any comments or questions from the Commission? Sure. Let me go ahead and scroll down to that definition here So the purpose of the change here is previously we defined excavation as any breaking of ground And gave an exception to common household gardening and ground care The one point to distinguish here that we want to add in and really make clear is that the installation of a wastewater system That's been approved Under a separate wastewater permit is not something that we can require Permit under the development regulations for because it's already permitted under the state wastewater program So this was just to really add some clarity to what is already the procedure from a legal standpoint for the town 4w various non substantive grammatical and organizational adjustments You're all good there and then changes to the zoning map including changes to Residential to in order to create Lakeshore 3 and Lakeshore 4 districts Any comments or questions about the map from the Commission? I think I know what you're trying to go. You're talking about So it's the the one out here, right Way out there. I never noticed that so it's my understanding that that's an error I Think we I'm not sure why that is a Not sure why that is there. It's kind of in the middle of the 89 right of way So it might not actually be a parcel It might have been something that um that does not exist But we can go ahead and clean that up and make sure that it's not included in this own change No, no no underground at the base of lone pine campsites Just curious when you go down closer to the corner There's a development there already wouldn't it make sense to include that into LS4 also Are you talking about this one right here? Yeah, so just to just to clarify that is currently zoned as Lakeshore 2 So it's under the previous yeah, yeah, so it's under the basic same guidelines of LS4 Yeah, I just came around the corner honestly, I don't know why they stopped there I don't think the difference in the zoning is gonna make any difference to that Yeah Yes, and also to note I believe Churchill Lane does have a planned unit development You know approval on record as well So there's some residential, you know very residential limitations on what can be done on that property in specific All right, and that concludes the list Sure, so I Can just give a little bit of insight here, but the next steps Would be at the Planning Commission's August 16th meeting and we'll go ahead and get a draft cleaned up Just inclusive of everything we've heard, you know up to tonight As a draft that would be compiled for a warning It'll include all of the changes beyond just the text So we'll get make sure all the tables tables a1 and a2 were updated and included We'll make sure the definitions are of course updated And we'll go ahead and you know get that draft ready for your review at that meeting The action that you might take that meeting would be to Approve the draft for a warrant hearing We'd be scheduling that out to the second meeting in September likely I'm just in order to give staff time to get you know the warning in the seven days Which is the paper of record that we're using And then beyond that the draft will go to the select board So we're probably looking at closer to an end of year time frame because the select board You know can't take action on it for 30 days once they receive it, but they have to act on it within 120 I believe so There's definitely some more steps in the way here For the Planning Commission, but you know things are definitely wrapping up with this and staff's next step Will be to give you that draft make the motion that we approve the minutes of July 19 Yeah, I can I can see if we can put an agenda item on the next meeting regarding that make an emotion to adjourn